Greetings, I am new at using debian. I use the lastest version with the gnome desktop environnement. I come from macOSX and I would like to configure the "shortcut bar" that you have on the left by default in gnome when you click on activities. Problem is I do not know the name of this bar and therefore I do not know where to search for informations about it.

I'm trying to set up systemd-timesyncd to sync computers behind my router/firewall to the clock on the router/firewall. If I accept the default configuration file and run "systemctl restart systemd-timesyncd", "systemctl status systemd-timesyncd" shows "Status: "Synchronized to time server <someIPaddr>:123 (0.debian.pool.ntp.org)". If I modify the configuration file so that "NTP=<IPaddr of my

router/fw>" and restart timesyncd and then check it's status, it reports "Status: Idle." and the clock on the client stays unsynchronised. Not much has shown up on duckduckgo. Can anyone offer any suggestions as to why this doesn't want to sync with my router/fw? and why it doesn't fall back to the FallbackNTP list of backup servers?

the problem I have is streamlining the process of finding out which dependencies I need before I download and copy packages over. And I'm also worried that with uninstalls/reinstalls and updates the structure might become messy

my reading of pinfo timesyncd.conf is, whatever you do in configuration ends up way down at the bottom of the list of available options long after it's exausted whatever it could squeeze out of systemd (systemd-networkd.service(8)).

mnuhmnuh: sorry I went AWOL to get some food in me. I checked the status of systemd-networkd in the midst of trying to figure this out. It reports: "Active: inactive (dead)". I just figured that was normal for a Debian system, that Debian handled networking some other way. Is that not the case?

looks to me it starts things up then goes away. man systemd.network, though: "NTP= ... #An NTP server address. This option may be specified more than once. This setting is read by systemd-timesyncd.service(8)."

itd: so, I've never used wireshark before, but I tried sniffing packets like you suggested. I managed to show just ntp traffic. When I restart timesyncd, I can see that something is happening between the two computers, but checking the status of timesyncd, it still shows it as idle, rather than as synchronised with my router/fw. Are you able to give anymore help in digging through the

itd: for the most part, the packets are the same in the two scenarios. The differences are that, 1) the "Reference Timestamp" was set to 1 Jan 1970 00:00:00.00000 during the conversation between timesyncd and my router/fw, whereas, when talking with the default server, the Reference Timestamp was set to the time of the initial contact between them, and then gets updated occasionally, and 2),

the "Origin Timestamp" is 2 to 3 seconds ahead of the "Receive and Transmit Timestamp"s when talking with my router/fw, whereas they are the same when talking to the default server. So, my router/fw appears to be talking to timesyncd on my other machine, but it doesn't appear to be exactly the same conversation as with the default server. Is there anymore juice that can be extracted from a

A couple of days ago I manually synced the clocks of all the client machines to the clock of my router/fw. They've drifted over the last couple of days. I had them to within less than a second difference between them

(re wireshark capture: you could try to use it to mimic the debian ntp server by sending received packets to your machine. if it updates its clock, your router/fw does something funny. but: huge effort, little gain.)

itd: it would be difficult to mimic the debian servers without 1) knowing what they've and 2) knowing what I'm doing myself :). I basically just followed the examples in the ntp configuration file on the router/fw to make it serve time. That involved uncommenting the "broadcast" keyword and putting the broadcast address of my network

Dear Debian users. I'd like to ask a kind side-Debian question. As I decided to move to other computer, I'm wiping my old HDDs now and found out the dban (Darik's Boot and Nuke) is advised on many webpages. However, I remeber that during Debian installation, it is added that in the beginning of a process, the full read-write erase is done. Does any of you know, if it's more secure to do so

mnuhmnuh: yeah, but it has direct depends on the cross gcc and g++. installing crossbuild-essential-armhf gets me the right compiler, since they are direct dependencies. however, i want those cross compilers *in the chroot*